Trump Appears to Endorse Path to Citizenship for Millions of Immigrants

[Boiler 46,156]

There are several billion people who would be interested in a Guest Worker programme.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

2 minutes ago, Boiler said:

There are several billion people who would be interested in a Guest Worker programme.

Let's stop illegal immigration by not making it illegal 🤣

[Boiler 46,156]

3 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Let's stop illegal immigration by not making it illegal 🤣

Could get crowded.

[Pennycat 880]

3 minutes ago, Boiler said:

There are several billion people who would be interested in a Guest Worker programme.

That's why there would be applications, not just a get your ticket and arrive. 

 

Just now, Nature Boy Flair said:

Let's stop illegal immigration by not making it illegal 🤣

In part, yes. As I said, there's obviously some supply/demand going on here otherwise people wouldn't keep coming. Just the "system" we've got, if you can even call it that, incentivizes crossing illegally and working under the table because there isn't a legal path (or enough visas in the legal path) to fill labor demand. I'm not saying tear down the border and make it a free-for-all, and I have put a lot of thought into this, and some time into explaining that thought, and it would be nice if you could attempt to do the same in reply, or not reply at all. Your comment as is really just illustrates my point that "we" aren't thinking about this from anywhere but our own pre-existing political camps, which has gotten us exactly NOWHERE since Reagan and that some people have more of an issue with the "immigration" part than the "illegal" part. 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

2 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Part of any deal should be the meaningful intent to straighten out USCIS.

And the myriad of other agencies and departments that are apart if the process.

[Boiler 46,156]

1 hour ago, CatherineA said:

That's why there would be applications, not just a get your ticket and arrive. 

 

In part, yes. As I said, there's obviously some supply/demand going on here otherwise people wouldn't keep coming. Just the "system" we've got, if you can even call it that, incentivizes crossing illegally and working under the table because there isn't a legal path (or enough visas in the legal path) to fill labor demand. I'm not saying tear down the border and make it a free-for-all, and I have put a lot of thought into this, and some time into explaining that thought, and it would be nice if you could attempt to do the same in reply, or not reply at all. Your comment as is really just illustrates my point that "we" aren't thinking about this from anywhere but our own pre-existing political camps, which has gotten us exactly NOWHERE since Reagan and that some people have more of an issue with the "immigration" part than the "illegal" part. 

So you get a few billion applications.

 

Then what?

[mindthegap 2,607]

9 minutes ago, Boiler said:

So you get a few billion applications.

 

Then what?

2years for an infopass appointment, and 10+ yrs for I-751s to be processed

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

40 minutes ago, Boiler said:

So you get a few billion applications.

 

Then what?

Charge 1000 to each employer who submits and pay down the budget

[Pennycat 880]

1 minute ago, Boiler said:

So you get a few billion applications.

 

Then what?

I think that you and I both know that you are severely overstating the "few billion". If this isn't a conversation that we're going to take seriously and conduct in good faith, I'd rather not have it. If you'd rather have a ping-pong "discussion" full of thoughtless soundbites, then I guess we're finished here. You know as well as I do that there already exists a framework for temporary guest worker visas, and I suspect the types of jobs we're talking about here are H-2A and H-2B  (temporary agriculture and non-agriculture, low skill). I'm not reinventing the wheel over here. I'd imagine that you'd be dealing with an increase in applications if there is an increase in visas available but even a tenfold increase won't get you anywhere close to a single billion let alone multiple. 

 

If you'd like to attempt a real conversation, here's a further explanation of the thought process--

 

These are the types of jobs filled by illegal immigrants, by and large and the only way for a non-family member to come and fill those positions is to go through the visa process which as low annual caps, or EWI and work under the table. I personally believe that most people are rational actors and most would choose the legal, get-a-visa route if they can, and they're not going to choose the illegal-risk-life-pay-lots-of-money route if they don't have a pretty good promise of something worthwhile waiting on the other side. So while I'm not going to defend EWI or non-immigrant visa abuse, I can at least see why this situation exists. Here, here's a job opportunity, you need this visa to go take it. Nope, can't have that visa but the job still exists wink, wink, nudge, nudge, basically. This is why going after the *employers* would be a huge component of this. Some H2B holders find themselves passed over for work in favor of those here illegally because the employer can at a *minimum* avoid paying payroll taxes on their wages, but also likely pays lower wages in general. Turn those here illegally into H2B holders and everyone is better off (unless your aim is simply to stem immigration in general and not illegal immigration specifically, which if it is, that is an entirely different conversation). 

 

Maybe run it similar to the H1B program-- annual cap and close off to new applications once the cap is reached. But because of the temporary/seasonal nature of the H-2A and H-2B jobs, maybe split the annual cap up quarterly, maybe twice a year, whatever works. Clearly, anything short of completely open borders isn't going to stop the "supply side" of willing worker immigrants. But increasing existing caps to meet demand sure won't hurt-- it will just decrease demand on our side, keep wages higher on our side (good for US workers too) and eliminate the disincentive to go home after the temporary work is over/ eliminate need/desire to have family join, at least for those who make the cap.

 

AND if you want to steal a page from Bush's failed proposal (failed for other reasons, not this financial piece) and allow their Social Security contributions to transfer to their home country's social security system (thus providing a financial incentive to go home when the time has run out/ at least get rid of a disincentive to leave), we'd still have the payroll taxes from the employer in our system (which we are not getting now), but not the individual to support when they reach retirement age. That, multiplied by hundreds of thousands of guest workers over dozens of years, and we've actually got a good thing going for ourselves. Add in sort of [mandatory but tax-free]  (unsure if either is legal/possible but hey, it was part of the proposal) savings account that can only be accessed upon return to home country--we don't know, no one could get past the "too mean to the immigrants" and "not tough enough on the illegals" bit to let that idea flesh out. 

 

16 minutes ago, mindthegap said:

2years for an infopass appointment, and 10+ yrs for I-751s to be processed

 

Because the fee-funded USCIS can't possibly hire more people with the "billions" of new applicants' fees and the penalty fees imposed on the millions of in-country applicants, right?  Or we couldn't control the flow of applications with annual caps like the existing programs (!) but simply increase the caps to meet demand? As in... what I've been talking about? Possibly?

[Boiler 46,156]

37 minutes ago, mindthegap said:

2years for an infopass appointment, and 10+ yrs for I-751s to be processed

20 and 100?

[mindthegap 2,607]

1 minute ago, CatherineA said:

Because the fee-funded USCIS can't possibly hire more people with the "billions" of new applicants' fees and the penalty fees imposed on the millions of in-country applicants, right?  Or we couldn't control the flow of applications with annual caps like the existing programs (!) but simply increase the caps to meet demand? As in... what I've been talking about? Possibly?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sarcasm

[Boiler 46,156]

2 minutes ago, CatherineA said:

I think that you and I both know that you are severely overstating the "few billion". If this isn't a conversation that we're going to take seriously and conduct in good faith, I'd rather not have it. If you'd rather have a ping-pong "discussion" full of thoughtless soundbites, then I guess we're finished here. You know as well as I do that there already exists a framework for temporary guest worker visas, and I suspect the types of jobs we're talking about here are H-2A and H-2B  (temporary agriculture and non-agriculture, low skill). I'm not reinventing the wheel over here. I'd imagine that you'd be dealing with an increase in applications if there is an increase in visas available but even a tenfold increase won't get you anywhere close to a single billion let alone multiple. 

 

If you'd like to attempt a real conversation, here's a further explanation of the thought process--

 

These are the types of jobs filled by illegal immigrants, by and large and the only way for a non-family member to come and fill those positions is to go through the visa process which as low annual caps, or EWI and work under the table. I personally believe that most people are rational actors and most would choose the legal, get-a-visa route if they can, and they're not going to choose the illegal-risk-life-pay-lots-of-money route if they don't have a pretty good promise of something worthwhile waiting on the other side. So while I'm not going to defend EWI or non-immigrant visa abuse, I can at least see why this situation exists. Here, here's a job opportunity, you need this visa to go take it. Nope, can't have that visa but the job still exists wink, wink, nudge, nudge, basically. This is why going after the *employers* would be a huge component of this. Some H2B holders find themselves passed over for work in favor of those here illegally because the employer can at a *minimum* avoid paying payroll taxes on their wages, but also likely pays lower wages in general. Turn those here illegally into H2B holders and everyone is better off (unless your aim is simply to stem immigration in general and not illegal immigration specifically, which if it is, that is an entirely different conversation). 

 

Maybe run it similar to the H1B program-- annual cap and close off to new applications once the cap is reached. But because of the temporary/seasonal nature of the H-2A and H-2B jobs, maybe split the annual cap up quarterly, maybe twice a year, whatever works. Clearly, anything short of completely open borders isn't going to stop the "supply side" of willing worker immigrants. But increasing existing caps to meet demand sure won't hurt-- it will just decrease demand on our side, keep wages higher on our side (good for US workers too) and eliminate the disincentive to go home after the temporary work is over/ eliminate need/desire to have family join, at least for those who make the cap.

 

AND if you want to steal a page from Bush's failed proposal (failed for other reasons, not this financial piece) and allow their Social Security contributions to transfer to their home country's social security system (thus providing a financial incentive to go home when the time has run out/ at least get rid of a disincentive to leave), we'd still have the payroll taxes from the employer in our system (which we are not getting now), but not the individual to support when they reach retirement age. That, multiplied by hundreds of thousands of guest workers over dozens of years, and we've actually got a good thing going for ourselves. Add in sort of [mandatory but tax-free]  (unsure if either is legal/possible but hey, it was part of the proposal) savings account that can only be accessed upon return to home country--we don't know, no one could get past the "too mean to the immigrants" and "not tough enough on the illegals" bit to let that idea flesh out. 

 

 

Because the fee-funded USCIS can't possibly hire more people with the "billions" of new applicants' fees and the penalty fees imposed on the millions of in-country applicants, right?  Or we couldn't control the flow of applications with annual caps like the existing programs (!) but simply increase the caps to meet demand? As in... what I've been talking about? Possibly?

So you have a cap and that number will be peanuts compared to demand.

 

Is that not what we have now?

[mindthegap 2,607]

1 minute ago, Boiler said:

So you have a cap and that number will be peanuts compared to demand.

 

Is that not what we have now?

Less peanuts, more monkeys*

 

 

 

 

(*for the professionally offended, not an h&m style comment)

[Pennycat 880]

Just now, Boiler said:

So you have a cap and that number will be peanuts compared to demand.

 

Is that not what we have now?

There will be fewer jobs available. I'm talking demand for labor not demand for visas. The workers are supply. Less demand for labor= less incentive to risk life/ imprisonment/ pay lots of money to come here and probably not find a job= lowers supply of willing immigrant workers. Couple that with the higher enforcement for those who haven't gotten the memo generally and you're starting to attack the problem. Why don't we see illegal immigrants working in Silicon Valley tech companies, for example?

[Pennycat 880]

4 minutes ago, mindthegap said:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sarcasm

It is 2018, get with the program:

 

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=%2Fs